linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] Add oops notification chain.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:54:33 -0500
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Aaron Durbin <adurbin@...gle.com>
CC:	Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, San Mehat <san@...gle.com>,
	Duncan Laurie <dlaurie@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tim Hockin <thockin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] Add oops notification chain.

On 01/25/2011 04:43 PM, Aaron Durbin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Jeff Garzik<jeff@...zik.org>  wrote:
>> On 01/25/2011 03:01 PM, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Greg KH<greg@...ah.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 04:24:39PM -0800, Mike Waychison wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Aaron Durbin<adurbin@...gle.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Later firmware patches in this series would like to be able to be
>>>>> notified whenever an oops occurs on the system, so that it can be
>>>>> recorded in the boot log.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch introduces a notifier_block called "oops_notifier_list"
>>>>> so that drivers can register to get called whenever an Oops is
>>>>> triggered.
>>>>
>>>> But we already have a panic notifier list.  Why create a new one?
>>>> What's wrong with the existing one that doesn't work properly for you?
>>>
>>> AFAICT, the panic notifier list doesn't get called on oops.
>>
>> Have you tried playing with panic_on_oops ?
>
> Yes. We actually run in that setup. However, oops != panic. They are 2
> distinct events. Sometimes we panic without the oops under certain
> situations. That is why it is desirable to have 2 distinct events.

That's a circular statement:  They are distinct events, so it is 
desirable that they be distinct events?

Set a flag, a la oops_in_progress (unfortunately name, as it's called 
during a panic too).  Call it...  oops_really_in_progress.  Then will 
the panic notifier list suffice?

	Jeff



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/